>> c. jay, what to watch for? >> you want to look at the numbers for candidates in these big states because i think in illinois, california, these are big targets for picking up seats, new york. whether the president can run up high numbers in the state, we see that always affects house races. >> alright, thank you both for being part of "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> almost 20 years ago, we broadcast one of our most controversial stories in our 40 years in the air. i was accused of being a

philistines, someone lacking the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate the challenging nature of some contemporary art. in those 20 years, works that i questioned worth hundreds of thousands of dollars are now worth hundreds of millions. so what made everybody so mad 20 years ago? >> i discovered something that i had absolutely could barely believe. that when you question someone's taste in art, it is more personal, more probing than politics, religion, sexual preference. when you say, you got that? >> worley safer on c-span's

"q&a." >> tomorrow, republican presidential candidate mitt romney gives a speech on u.s. foreign policy at the virginia military institute. live coverage of his remarks begins at 11:20 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things i have heard from a number of companies and individuals i have met with is that the fcc has sometimes not acted with much alacrity with respect to issues that are pending before the commission or in delaying action on other issues. i wanted to think about different ways the commission could speed up its processes. second, i think that one of the key things that the commission can do and should do is enable more dynamic industry by giving more spectrum into the marketplace. there are a number of proposals on the table. finally, i tried to think of different ways that the fcc can

remove barriers on infrastructure investment. for every billion dollars in the the private sector spence, about 15,000 new jobs can be created. from a regulatory perspective, our goal should be to remove the barriers to enable the private sector to take those risks and make those multibillion-dollar investment decisions. >> the newest republican commissioner, ajit pai on "the communicators" on c-span 2. >> in connecticut, republican linda mcmahon and democrat chris murphy face-off in their first debate for the u.s. senate seat to replace joe lieberman appeared this debate is courtesy of wsfbtv. it is one hour. >> a very good sunday morning to you. welcome to the first debate in the state for the u.s. senate

seat currently held by joe lieberman. each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer questions. then 30 seconds to rebut his or her opponent. and now, let's bring out our candidates. chris murphy and linda mcmahon. >> good to see you. >> a coin toss determined that mrs. mcmahon will begin. >> good morning and thanks to channel three and our audience. i am often asked why are you running for the united states senate? it is so that my six grand general and -- grand children and future generations will have

the promise for prosperity. that promise is rapidly slipping away because our economy is on the wrong track. 170,000 people woke up been arrested this morning without a job. if we can get our economy back on track, we can get our people back to work. i have a way to do that. i have been there. i have been bankrupt. i have lost everything. and i have been able to come back. that is what we need to do. my opponent has no plans and the policies in washington have only made things worse. you can have a path to create millions of jobs or you can have the path where someone is when to push our economy off a fiscal cliff. >> i really looking forward to this morning. i am a product of connecticut. i was raised to believe that i needed to live my life in a way to stand up to the -- for the

middle-class families. that is why i passed the connecticut's them sell law, which is saving lives and the people to work. i went to congress to stand for manufacturing and fight outsourcing. that is me. that is my story. it is a very different story from the demands. over and over again, she has shown as she stands up for herself and her profits at the expense of the people that work for her and at the expense of this state. i will stand for only one thing, the middle class of this state. i look forward to the next hour. >> our first question to mr. murphy. >> both of you have had personal financial problems. mr. murphy, you have been sued for nonpayment of mortgage bills. mrs. mcmahon committee filed for bankruptcy and walked away from that. how can connecticut voters felt confident that you will be able to exercise good judgment on the

federal budgets -- federal budget decisions facing connecticut taxpayers when you have mismanaged your own personal finances? >> thank you for this question. as i said, i have made mistakes in my own personal finances. but i made those mistakes and i fix them. everyone who has looked into these allegations has seen that those are completely false. what makes bailout of these attack as we have seen from linda mcmahon especially troubling is the fact that, during the exact same time, she still had not paid back the $1 million that she owed her creditors from her bankruptcy.

she wrote $28,000 in property taxes on her home in stanford. here is what i hear what i am talking to people in the state -- they don't want this race to be about allegations about personal finances or attack ads. they want this race to be about them. they want to know which one of us is going to fight hard for their job, which one is going to stop the outsourcing of work from connecticut factories, they want to know how we're going to fix the schools. they won this race to be about them and that's going to be my focus over the course of the last four weeks of this race, talking about the issues that matter to the people of this state. >> i agree that we need to talk about the issues in this state. an occasional financial slip is not what we're talking about here. but you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans and your attendance in washington. those are issues that are important to the folks of connecticut because they want to know can they trust the congressman or senator they're sending to washington to represent them and work and fight for them.

i have had a career of creating jobs and contributing to the economy of connecticut. i have a plan to do that. you have no plan. my plans for a tax cut for the middle-class and reduces taxes on businesses and rolls back overburdens in regulation and cuts spending one penny of every dollar. it focuses on education to make sure we are empowering our workforce for the jobs that are available. lastly, it develops a comprehensive energy plan so we can put people back to work while we are protecting our economy and being an energy independent. i spend time developing my plan. you have no plan. i think the people of connecticut want to know what we're going to do for them. >> mr. murphy, you have 30 seconds. >> linda mcmahon should stop spreading these stories. it's not ok to make up these

stories when you're running for the senate. my work is based in the work of debt and public service and focusing tax cuts on the middle-class, not by focusing tax cuts on the affluent and rich. my focus is on rebuilding the education system, not divesting from funding the most important services to our states. they're big differences in are planted as we should be talking about. >> is the public being well served by the quality and nature of this campaign? we are here today in a formal debate and youtube are probably going to answer around a dozen questions, but both of you have failed a basic standard of transparency and access in this campaign. press conferences are few and far between, if at all. neither one of the performs the basic task of letting us know where you are from day today so we can simply listen to what you are telling voters.

this is pretty basic stuff. your campaign, serving the voters of connecticut -- how is your campaign serving the voters of connecticut? >> i am not every single day. -- i am out every single day. i have travelled out of state and visited 250 businesses and been in over 150 living rooms around the state. i like the effectiveness of the campaign or we can bring our message directly to the people of connecticut. i like the folks in connecticut to be able to look be in the eye and ask me the questions they want to ask me. i learn from them and listen to them when i am out and i think our campaign is being run very effectively by our messaging and with our interaction with the voters. it's the voters in connecticut to are going to make the choice. the voters are going to decide whether or not the person going to washington is actually going to fight for them and actually

has a fan to address the most serious issue today which is facing our country, and that is jobs in the economy. congressman murphy doesn't have a plan. yes not put a plan fourth to address these issues. you can look online and see exactly what i plan to do. they now have a track record of creating jobs and adding to the economy and they know i'm going to take that skill set to washington in a congress where we have so few business people who come from the private sector. blacks why can't the press come along and monitor this -- >> why can't the press, along and monitor this question are >> the press does come along. >> this campaign is about the people of the state of connecticut. i ran into a guy just a couple of weeks ago, and out of work painter and he wants to know the differences between linda and i between how we're going to

put him back on the job. they're big differences. when the's plan is focused on giving herself a $7 million tax cut and hoping that trickles down to people who need help. my plan is focused on investing in the people of this state and funding our schools and building roads and bridges and we recognize the strength of our nation is the people who desperately want to good work. linda does have a plan under website but as we have recently learned, a good part of that is just listed word for word, paragraph by paragraph from white -- from right-wing republican sites in washington. it is not a plan for connecticut. it essentially parrots a bunch of talking points that have not worked for this country. >> why the lack of access as far as where the two of you are day in, day out. >> i don't think there is any comparison in terms of access. linda has refused to meet with editorial boards and i've been

very willing to do so. i cannot count the number of press ability -- press availability as i have done. linda mcmahon does not want this campaign to be about issues. because of that is, she loses. whether its tax policy, support for education or women's health care, she cannot win because her economic plan is rooted in republican national talking points. my plan is rooted in the people of this state. >> i'm going to take time to respond to the very serious charge congressman murphy has leveled against me. shame on you. yet just accused me of plagiarizing my plan. it is beneath a congressman who is sitting today or anyone who is running for the united states senate. you know very well by plan is my own. i have sought the expert opinions of those outside to get the brightest and the best and every word of that plan has

been cited either in the online plan or in print. when you got into this race as i am going to finish pic. you are in the serious race with a serious woman. >> we're going to move on to the next. >> in this tide of rising national debt, i was wondering about congressional earmarked. do you support elimination of them? here is one -- $1.9 million for a water taxi to pleasure beach in bridgeport. >> first call me respond to this last allegation. there is no doubt we'll look at her jobs plan, there are entire

paragraphs and sentences lifted from the house republican website, from the cato institute. i don't know what you call it, but all i am saying is this is not a plan rooted in what best for the state of connecticut. this is a plan written by people in washington. when that mcmahon's idea that by simply giving a bunch of tax cuts to the wealthy is going to benefit the rest of us is a really attractive idea to right- wing republicans in washington but it just doesn't work. it has never worked. differencesbout the and the fact that my plan continues to be regarded with best for connecticut. linda mcmahon's plan is rooted in paragraph says sentences written by other people. knottier question about fiscal responsibility -- now to your question about fiscal responsibility. we need to take a very different

way of looking at how the federal government spends money. i support a moratorium on your marks because it had gotten out of control before it to congress. but that's the beginning slice of a much bigger question about how we bring down the size of the federal government. i have called for a 1% reduction in overall discretionary spending. i have called for a balanced approach on deficit reduction requiring the wealthy to pay more and more cutting in the federal government. >> you have 90 seconds. >> again, shame on you. you thought this campaign is going to be a coronation because you're a democrat and now you are in a serious race with a serious woman and you are desperate. therefore you raise these issues. my plan sites every word that i used from the brightest in the best to but my plan together.

you would be better served to be putting a plan together. you need to be honest with the people of connecticut. you need to be honest about your special interest loans. to be honest about your attendance in washington. shame on you for taking this direction with this campaign. it is beneath you. and the people of connecticut deserve better. in my plan, i have referenced a tax cut for the middle class. my plan, if you take a look at it, absolutely keeps taxes the same across the board accept we're going to cut taxes for the middle class. my plan is the only one that has an actual middle-class tax cut. congressman murphy has voted to raise taxes on the middle class over two times already. his actions speak louder than his words. take a look at my plan -- it will cut taxes for the middle- class and we will cut taxes for

businesses. however, when we cut taxes for businesses, we will eliminate ear marks and loopholes and special subsidies. >> you have 30 seconds to rebut. >> here is what the director of connecticut's's said mayor for economic analysis of this about her plan. it is a recipe to balloon the federal deficit at a phenomenal rate. it looks like her items were picked off of a menu of politically attractive items. they were, because they were like -- or picked off a list of items with it from someone else outside the state and you should be honest about the fact that these are not original ideas. these are ideas that have been tried and failed over and over again. -- >> mr. murphy -- >> it has not worked for this economy and it will not work for the future. >> we will have closing arguments at the end of the statement. we would invite you if you could to please keep to the questions.

our next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> let's talk about ways to improve social security. should payroll taxes be raised or should more income be applied to the payroll tax rate to improve social security? bill >> let me address again that congressman murphy has not been honest about my position on social security. let me be clear. i will support no budget that will reduce our benefits for social security or medicare. >> the question is about increasing payroll taxes to support social security in the future. >> i'm going to get to your answer. i believe we're going to have to reform social security and medicare in order that it will continue to be available for generations to come. however, i believe we have to sit in a bipartisan way in congress the issues on the table and address those things that are going to be put into place to save and preserve

social security and medicare for the future. we will do that in a bipartisan way. we will have scored and see with the financial impact of that are. we all agree it cannot sustain itself the way it is bidding, however, we also know we have to work together to make sure we can devise a plan that is going to work. >> are you interested in raising the payroll tax to support social security? a i'm going to sit in bipartisan commission and congress to work with all members to put the issues on the table which we need to address to prolong social security and medicare. >> mr. murphy, you have 90 seconds. >> that was one minute and 30 seconds of i'm not going to tell you what i'm going to do if you elect me. that's what this whole campaign has been about. not being straight with the people of connecticut when she looks you in the eye on what she's not going to do it comes

to social security. i would look at increasing the payroll tax, the amount of income if we need to increase the amount of money coming into social security to preserve it for future generations. but let's talk about what linda mcmahon has said. i want to put words in your mouth, so let's take the exact quote -- when your before a tea party group that didn't think anyone was listening, this what you said -- "and i do believe there are ways to look at, what we're trying to do when we put social security in place. in other words, i believe in sunset provisions when we pass this kind of legislation so you can take a look at a 10 or 15 years down the road." this was her 47% moment, when she told this state she would support the sun setting of

social security only when she didn't think we were watching. that would be a disaster for the people of this state, the thousands of connecticut senior to rely on that paycheck coming into shall security month after month. we can be looking at something, which is a nice way of saying and the social security. >> you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> there you go again not being honest. the rest of that quote, if you read that, it would confirm what i said at the beginning. i will support no budget, unlike you, who has already voted to take out $716 billion out of medicare. i will vote for no budget that will reduce the benefits are seniors are currently getting. >> these are your words. >> thank you very much. >> you have both describe yourself as pro-choice and strong supporters of women's reproductive health services. let's talk some specifics. would you oppose a supreme

court candidate known to favor of overturning roe vs. wade? as far as reproductive health services, which you maintain the nixon era planning program, title 10, which provides reproductive health care through planned parenthood and other private providers? >> i would. i would oppose supreme court justices who are going to use their position to strike down roe vs. wade and i would maintain and fight for this country's commitment to family planning. i'm here with my wife today and the issue of standing up for women's reproductive health is not just a political issue for us, it's a personal issue. my wife was the board chair for connecticut may wall and went to the legislature to fight to defeat one of the leading anti- choice legislators there. linda's history is a very different. she has said on record that she would support something called a blunt amendment which is a right-wing republican proposal

that would allow any employer in this country to deny their employees, their female employes, coverage for contraceptive, not just religious employers, religious and non-religious employers. it is unconscionable that a connecticut senator would go to washington to stand up for that kind of right wing proposal that could end of the nine contraceptive coverage to millions of women across this country and maybe even more importantly, i will make this commitment -- i will never support a leader in my party in the u.s. senate who would work to overturn roe vs. wade. if when that mcmahon is elected to the senate, no matter what the issue is, she will be empowering a senate majority leader and chairman of the judiciary committee will stop at nothing to erode women's health care. that's a big issue in this campaign. >> it is a myth to think that would be against women's health issues.

i am a woman. clearly, i'm going to continue to support access to contraception, mammograms, pap smears, all of them as i did as the ceo of a company that provided all those health benefits to its employees. i absolutely will not do anything that would impact women's health care issues. relative to a supreme court justice, i would hope there would not be a litmus test for president romney when he is supporting -- when he is so -- when he is presenting candidates for the supreme court. supreme court justices decide many issues. while i might not agree on each and everyone, i would want to bet that supreme court justice and judge the best justice for all their beliefs and all of their rulings said it would rule in accordance with the constitution. the blunt amendment overreached. it was not about contraception. it was about the of reach of

government and the separation of church and state. i will always support the separation of church and state and the overreach of government. part of what's wrong in washington is our government is too big. keeps reaching into our lives. i clearly support women's health issues but i don't support government overreach. >> here in connecticut, we have a lot on the books that says an employer has to cover basic preventive health care, which includes coverage for contraception. the blunt amendment would take direct aim at states like connecticut who have stood up for women's health care. it is frankly insulting for linda mcmahon to save you should only look at her gender, not what she stands for. she cannot run away from the fact she would vote for the blunt amendment, which would and coverage for birth control for thousands of connecticut and millions of women in this country. >> the next question is for mrs. mcmahon. >> in connecticut, we have 9.1%

unemployment. gas prices are rising well above $4. home values are down. how does this recession affected you? >> this recession has impacted so many people in connecticut. 171,000 people woke up this morning without a job. the reason i've turned my focus so strongly about creating jobs and putting people back to work in this campaign is because that's the primary issue of this campaign. anytime anyone is impacted by higher gas prices, higher food prices, just the cost of everyday living, it is squeezing our middleclass. that is why my jobs plan and my tax provision start with a reduction of taxes to the middle-class, because those are the ones we need to give a lift, to have a tax cut for our job creators so are small businesses can continue to create jobs and we can start to

turn this economy around and put people back in the state back to work. that's what will solve the issues. if we put more people back to work, they have more money in their pockets, they pay more taxes, they buy more goods and services. if they buy more goods and services, we create more goods and services. we bring down the cost of fuel and energy and gas prices. in our restaurants, they have to pay more for food than the deliveries. we have to bring down these costs and make our small businesses viable. >> limit tell you how this recession has affected me -- i have fought even harder for the people i represent. i committed my life to public service because i saw my

neighbors out of work. i saw my family being denied health care. when this recession hit, i turned up the volume on fighting for connecticut manufacturers. i founded the buy america caucus, dedicated to making sure our tax dollars stay in the united states. i stepped up the volume when it came to making sure the social safety net was there for the people of this state who were out of work, whether it's a unemployment benefits for health care for them and their kids. i fought even harder in the public arena for people who needed help. how did this recession affect linda mcmahon? in 2009, her company took $10 million in state tax credit designed to create jobs. at the same time, she laid off 10% of the workforce and made $46 million that year. she says that was the tough time and a bad recession. all she had to do to keep those 10% of workers on board was to just make $8 million less than a year and decide she could get by on $38 million that year rather than $46 million and as

people could still be working. this recession has made me work harder but this recession doesn't seem to have affected the linda mcmahon. >> you say that you have worked harder for the people of connecticut. i think need to be honest about your attendance record in washington. you did not attend the committee hearings dealing with the recession, even when you served on the powerful financial services committee. you missed 80% of those meetings. i think a recession is a time when the war -- when you need to focus and understand as much as you can about what is going on and he needed to have been at those meetings. >> we have now reached about half a point of this debate. we not a question for mr. murphy. >> this question is about the income tax rate. do you support raising the top income tax rate as proposed by

president obama or reducing the top rate proposed by mitt romney? >> let me first respond to -- >> you will have time at the end. the question is about income tax rates for the highest incomes. >> i have a 97% of voting attendance rate in congress and i would be glad to talk about this issue going forward. let's talk about this issue. it is incredibly important. frankly, this is what people want to hear about it set of personal attacks. they want to hear about what we're going to do and what the differences between the two of us. my focus is on middle-class tax cuts. we should reauthorize the bush tax cuts for 98% of americans and expand them for families that need help paying for education or child care. i do not think we should extend the bush tax cuts for the

wealthiest 1% of americans. do you know why i don't think that? we tried it. we tried massive tax cuts for the wealthy during the bush administration and it didn't work. there is no empirical data that shows it works. this is about choices. the choice is this -- do you think $7 million is better spent in a new tax cut for linda mcmahon, or better spent giving additional cuts for child care in hartford on strike is a better off giving $7 million to linda mcmahon or is it better to use that to reduce class sizes in new britain? >> my tax plan calls for cutting taxes for the middle-class. it is the only real reduction in taxes for the middle-class. it also calls for keeping the other tax rates the same, so there is no increase or decrease in any other bracket. it is simply about the middle class because that is where we need help. we need to reduce our taxes on business, but when i look at

what our tax policy needs to be, we want to make sure while we are reducing taxes, we are also reducing spending. the reason tax cuts don't always work is if you don't decrease spending at the same time. my plan calls for a 1% reduction in spending. we're on space -- we are on pace to spend $3.8 trillion this year. we have overlapping and duplicative programs that cost over $200 billion a year. i'm not talking about cutting back services, i'm talking about cutting spending. if we were to put the tax cut emplace congressman murphy just talked about, we would have enough money to run the federal government for 26 days. that's not going to get the job done. that does not cut down on the size of government. that does not improve the lot of the 170,000 people who woke up and are still without a job. we need a comprehensive jobs

plan to get our economy back on track. i have one. congressman murphy does not. >> this is why we are in the problem we are in today. can't it's like linda mcmahon have promised the world -- we're going to have massive tax cuts and only cut spending by a little bit. arithmetic test to matter at some point, as bill clinton has said it bit convention. she would cut taxes by $4.1 trillion and cut spending by $360 billion. should cut taxes by 12 times the rate should cut spending. that's why the university of connecticut says it's a recipe for disaster on the deficit. >> your campaign has talked a great deal about middle-class tax cuts. not so much about poverty or

issues of economic inequality. connecticut is a very well the state but our state capital, a recent report noted half of all children live in poverty. bridgeport, new haven, waterbury are not that far behind. what is your campaign doing to address poverty issues? are there any party programs that are off-limits from budget cuts? -- any poverty programs off limits from budget cuts? >> i absolutely believe we have to have a safety net in place to take care of those people who can't take care of themselves. they did not opt to be in this situation. we are a benevolent nation that we want to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. however, i think the best way out of poverty is to have a job. i want to make sure we give people opportunities to have jobs and work. when they can go to work, they're paying into the

economy. they're helping the economy grow. congressman murphy talks about a tax plan that doesn't make mathematical sense. he is looking at america and the most visible way. he's not looking at an america that can grow and have economic growth because we have a growth plan in place that is going to make our economy better. those people who are suffering and you are in poverty, we need to continue to take care of them. as i drew the difference between governor romney and myself, when he talked about those in poverty, i said they haven't chosen to be there. i would not cut our food stamp programs now because we need to make sure those folks can continue to be taken care of. but let's get them a job and get them back to work so families can progress. >> again, this is just about numbers. if you except this tax cut

number, the only way to account for it is to have massive cut to these programs that do put people to work and grow jobs and take care people when they are out of work. you have to look at the work i have done. i've committed my life to standing up to the most vulnerable among us. some of the work i do on these issues may be don't get the big headlines. i wrote a piece of legislation, the support of housing investment act, named after a great advocate for anti-homeless this in connecticut that would triple the amount of housing units built for the most vulnerable among us. people have very grave mental illnesses and physical handicaps that can live on their own if they just have some supportive housing wrapped around them. i brought millions of dollars

back to the state to take homeless veterans of the streets. when i was sworn into office, there were about a thousand veterans living on the streets. we tripled the number of units we paid for across the state to bring the veterans of the woods, from under the bridges in stanford, and put them in housing again. you don't have to look of my campaign website to see if i care about the most vulnerable among us. you just have to look at the work i've done. i've dedicated my life to the people of the state and that would be a priority if i'm elected to the senate. >> you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> it is imperative we continue the social programs to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, but i want to make sure when i'm in the senate that i'm pushing for of my jobs plan to get our people back to work and grow our economy because when we grow our economy, everyone will benefit and will have a healthier and

stronger nation. that's what i propose to do in washington. >> just to be clear, mr. murphy, the democrats say we don't have to cut programs like social security and medicare to tackle the national debt and republicans in general say we don't need to raise taxes. what do you think about that question mark what programs and how would you go about cutting and would you? >> i have called for a 1% cut in discretionary spending and i have been specific about where we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the we need a combination of both additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and them some serious -- that is some serious spending cuts.

the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstructionism and draw these ridiculously hard lines and the stand -- hard line in the sand. we a compromise solution that draws from both sides of the ledger. >> as a ceo, i had to bring

people to the table to get a deal done. that is how you negotiate an have compromise. he put issues on the table. everyone debates hard for what they want. but in the end, you walk away from the table with both sides getting some of what they want but not all of what they want. congressman murphy, you and i agree on a 1 percent cut in spending except i would not cut from defense. we have already had half a trillion dollars cut out of the defense budget. sequestration, which you are going to allow, will have another half a trillion dollars, the defense budget. the defense industry is very big in connecticut with our submarine base and all the small industries that do subcontract work. it's about $3 billion for the state of connecticut. i'm not going to vote for any

more cuts in defense spending because we need to have a strong defense and we need to preserve that portion of the economy here in the state of connecticut. i think there are other places to find that 1 percent and cut. you and i agree on duplicative programs. that's something we can take without cutting services. but my plan is a growth plan. when put in place, our economy will grow an arc revenue will increase because that's the way america is. >> mr. murphy, you have 30 seconds to rabat. >> another in 90 seconds and no answers. not a single specific cut she would support and another example of fealty to supply- side, trickle-down economics that have not worked. trust me, they will eventually trickle down to everyone else. we don't need people who are going to washington without specific ideas where they would cut, without any answers to how they would achieve compromise. it's one thing to say i'm going

to have everyone sit down on the table, it's another to have to be able to sit down and do it. >> if obamacare is repealed, which plan be to insure the millions of americans who would be left without health insurance as a result? >> i am on record saying i would repeal and replace obamacare. there are parts of obamacare and i think are very good. the fact that a child today, that they can stay on their insurance until they are 26 is a good thing. i think we need to make sure we're not being penalized for pre-existing conditions. that's a very good thing in obamacare. however, i think obamacare was put into place to bring down the cost curve on health care and that is not what is happening. insurance premiums are going up,

the cost of health care is going up. we're going to add about 10 million more people to our health care world and we're not going to have that doctors or medical personnel to support that. i think we need a health-care revision. there's no question about that. but we need a health care revisions that's going to allow a marketplace to compete to bring down the cost. we need to be able to buy insurance across state lines. that means states have to get out of mandates for insurance. we need tort reforms to bring down the cost and we need accessibility for insurance. we need affordability for insurance. this current law is not going to do that. it will continue to drive up health-care costs and the cost of insurance premiums. >> you have 90 seconds. >> let me tell you why -- why i have dedicated my life to the idea that everyone should have access to decent health care. there's a woman in connecticut

who has worked hard all her life and so has her husband. her husband was switching jobs and in between those two jobs, during the week he was unemployed, their son was diagnosed with cancer. when it would to get insurance on her husband's new plan, they would not provide for because he had a pre-existing condition. one week or two weeks of a lifetime and they didn't have insurance. they lost everything. they lost their house, their savings, they became destitute simply because an illness happened at the wrong time. there is no repeal and replace plan. republicans in washington have voted to repeal is built 33 times that have never offered a replacement. we'd to protect this bill and perfected going forward. matters for small businesses -- perfect -- perfected going forward. it matters for small businesses and individuals who have been

discriminated against because they've gone bankrupt, because someone in their family got ill that could not get health care simply because they did not have the money to afford it. let's fix this bill and make it right. the methodology that you could just preserve the good parts what getting all -- getting rid of the parts you don't like cannot happen. that not what the republican party planned on doing. >> i would vote to repeal and replace because this was passed under the mark of government health care. i don't think that's the most efficient way to offer health care to our citizens. within this bill, there are 21 tax increases. congressman murphy, the referenced q would be cutting taxes for our small businesses under this plan, but it does not. raises taxes. small businesses tell me this is their single largest concern. >> the next question is for mr. murphy. >> regardless what happens with the affordable care act, the

government will remain deeply involved in government health care. i want to ask about a very sensitive part of health cost- containment. one third of u.s. health spending is to take care of americans in their last year of life. does that need to change and how this government tackle something like that without the debate quickly turning into talk about government death panels and health-care rationing? >> we need to make a commitment to be blunt public health care systems like medicare and medicaid that we are going -- public health care systems that we're going to take care of them. that's my commitment as a u.s.

senator. but in order to do that, the have to have a medicare and medicaid program that works for those individuals and is not just designed to pad the bottom lines of insurance companies. this is where linda mcmahon and i differ. i believe we have to make changes to medicare to save the program. we have to make it more efficient and cost-effective. we have to get the waste out of it. we don't need to privatize it. linda mcmahon said she would entertain paul brian's plans to privatize medicare. that she would look at it. i will not. i will fight privatization of medicare with every breath i have because, to your question -- if medicare or medicaid becomes privatized and is being run by health-care insurance companies, then the decisions that are made will be what is in their best interest. what makes their bottom line better, not what protect

connecticut's seniors, not what connects those families trying to come to a very tough decision. >> should government have our role in and of life health-care and the spending that goes with that? >> the way to do this is to simply not empower health insurance bureaucrats. the way to do is to have families deep in consultation with physicians about the best course of action is either direction and their choice at the end of life. >> congressman murphy and i agree that the choice between late term care and and care ought to be between families and physicians. unfortunately, the affordable health care act takes that away and puts panels and between the patient and doctor. that is something i do not agree with in our health-care law. that's one of the reasons i oppose it. these are times we have to look at what is best for everyone to have the best kind of health care they can have. i believe in preventive health care and let me just address one thing before -- let me digress for a second.

i have never said i'm for privatizing social security or our medicare plans. that's clearly not my thing. congressman murphy knows that has to be honest about that. i will support continuing reform to social security and medicare simply prolong it for our generation. congressman murphy voted to take $716 billion of medicare to fund the affordable health care act. i don't think that is what we should do. we're there for than going to eventually did i those services to our seniors or hospitals or doctors who are going to take medicare patients. these are some of the pitfalls in the affordable health care act and these are the things i want to adjust to take care of so we do not penalize our seniors. >> president obama let me romney get away with the $700 billion law and i'm not going to let linda away with it.

that money is taking out -- taken of the budget of health insurers who are being massively subsidized for medicare advantage. it is being taken out of the pockets of drug industries and drug companies who are making billions of care for seniors. if you are going to be serious about reducing the rate of growth of medicare, which you have to beat, then you have to be willing to say we're going to end the subsidies to insurance companies and drug companies who don't need our money when seniors to. >> in north carolina, your home state, gay marriage is banned and here in connecticut, gay marriages legal. which state got it right? >> i have lived in connecticut and i absolutely support america's law for same-sex marriage. i would not pretend to try to impose my will on others. i sing everyone should have the

freedom to make that choice. >> america does not have a law protecting same-sex marriage. in fact, it has the exact opposite. the united states has a law that doesn't allow people to marry based on their choice. it discriminates against individuals based on their sexual orientation. i think the fact that linda mcmahon spent only 20 seconds answering that question tell you she's not going to stand up to her party in washington when it comes to these issues that are being dominated by the social right in washington. there is a war being waged against gays and lesbians and i'm proud to stand on one side of that war. i'm proud to stand up to end the don't ask, don't tell policy, and not produce and for the idea that anyone in this country regardless of their sexual orientation should be treated the same. that's going to the fight i continue.

but the shortness of that answer suggests linda mcmahon is not going to stand up to the social right in her party which is trying to destroy the rights of gays and lesbians and also trying to destroy the white -- the rights of women in this country and take away their ability to choose for themselves what they want to do with the body and and coverage for family planning services and reproductive health care services. i'm going to fight that social right whether it signed a rights or women's rights every day i'm in the united states senate. when the mcmahon, as a republican, is simply going to be another vote to empower it. at the critical difference. >> mr. murphy, you voted with your party 90% of the time. i am independent thinker. i will differ from my party on particular issues. >> on that one? on the issue of civil rights? >> i will absolutely differ from my party. i am pro-choice candidate, i believe in equal rights for all. i would have voted to repeal don't ask, don't tell.

i don't think we should have discrimination in the military, the workplace or anywhere. >> our next question is to mr. murphy. >> knowing that voters form their opinions based on political ads, how can you justify airing ads that in some cases have been determined by fact checkers to be misleading, confusing, and downright inaccurate? >> the ads that you see on tv for me right now are me in my kitchen talking to voters directly about the differences between me and linda mcmahon on critical issues. i support a middle-class tax cut. when the mcmahon includes a tax cut for the very wealthy. when history is standing up for the people in the state, whether it's taking homeless veterans of the street and giving them housing or fighting for the most vulnerable and the roof over their head because of a disability or mental illness.

linda mcmahon has used her job a very different way, going to jobs -- going to washington to fight for lower protection for workers. those of the issues we should be talking about. it differences between us on the issues we stand for and our respective professional history. what i don't think voters what are these personal attacks that linda mcmahon is waging against me, my wife, and my family. it's not surprising she's doing it. she tried to do it two years ago with a very serious of personal ads. people in this state what the phrase to be focused on issues. to the extent i am talking about linda mcmahon in my ads, talking about the difference between her and i and the differences that matter to connecticut families. >> you have 90 seconds. >> i think we ought to clearly be discussing the issues. that's why i have bad to talk about my six. plants.

talks about tax cuts to the middle-class and reducing taxes for businesses and rolling back overburdensome regulations. when i've been up to ring are businesses, one business in plainfield, conn. said he was dealing with overregulation, he wanted to double the size of its facilities and put in two new pieces of equipment and hire new employees. he goes to his bank and under the current regulatory environment, as bank took a look at his business plan and said here is your problem -- you are asset rich and cash poor. he said i know that, if i had the cash it would not be here for a loan. he would have to over collateralize a loan by 150% under the current regulatory environment. i want him to be able to grow his business. it's a classic example of regulation killing jobs.

we need to make sure we have the proper amount of legislation but not overregulation. my commercials talk about reducing spending, and powering our work force for training for jobs available and developing a comprehensive energy policy to put our people back to work, energy independence to protect our environment. >> 30 seconds to rebut. >> you have been running some of the most deceitful attack at the state has ever seen. don't try to pretend that has not been what's happening in that race. when your campaign was asked why you don't start talking about the issues, your campaign manager said it would be a senseless exercise. that's right. for linda mcmahon talking at the issues of be a senseless exercise. the only ads she can run are against me and my family. by pathe is different.

-- my path is different. that's what in the final four weeks my campaign will be about. >> it's time now with our closing statements. we begin with mrs. mcmahon. i want -- >> i want to thank you once again. voters in connecticut will have a clear choice in november. a clear choice between a job creator has a plan to create millions of jobs and someone has never created job and does not plan to do that. someone who will raise taxes on the middle class, has voted to do that already, and someone who is going to reduce taxes, a class. someone who desperately wants to put our folks back to work, someone who wants to give an honest representation to the people of connecticut.

i think congressman murphy does need to be honest. he needs to be honest about his special interest and special interest loans. i don't have that opportunity to have special interest loans and i would not take special interest money because i cannot be bought. congressman murphy needs to come clean. i would be honored to serve as your united states senator and ask for your vote on november 6. >> thank you to panelists and our student -- a studio audience. i may not be worth millions like linda mcmahon, but that's because i have dedicated my life to fighting for people in the state. she's going to use her wealth to spend the last few weeks engage in very personal attacks me -- personal attacks against me and my life. here's my message to the people of connecticut -- don't let her do it. make this race be about you. make about the senior citizen who can't have their next senator play games with the next paycheck. make it be about the out of work factory worker who wants a senator who will fight for in sourcing, not outsourcing. make it be about the kid in new britain who can't learn with 30 kids of her class.

make this race be about you and set aside the personal tax and lies you see on tv at focus this race on which one of the two of us is going to put you back to work at supportable class. thank you very much. >> before we say goodbye, we have a yes or no question -- incumbent senators often avoid debates. will you commit right now to debating your opponent in 2018 bashar >> sure i will. >> absolutely. >> we want to thank our candidates tonight. thank you very much for watching. three more debates in this campaign season. have a great sunday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> coverage of the u.s. senate debate in virginia between allen. that's fall flat at 9:00 -- that is followed by a date for the john tester and danny greenberg.

that's tomorrow on c-span. >> on the fourth, sixth, sixth day of being in office we were sitting in the oval office. larry summers said "mr. president, looking at this year's budget you're going to have a $1 trillion deficits." he said "i have not done anything yet." >> we cannot look our children in the eye knowing we would give them a diminished future because we're spending their money today. it is a very simple idea. we have to stop spending money we do not have?

>> you can watch and ring gauge on c-span with our live debate previous starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at 9:00. >> c-span provide on demand coverage from the vice- presidential debate. is the only way were you will see our live coverage from behind the scenes sights and sounds before and after the debate. they have each as a separate cliff.

>> the group advocates equal rights for lesbian, bisexual, it and transgendered americans. this is about 25 minutes. >> this role right here as within it the. of our common ancestors. i am not talking about ancestry, and blood ties. it can access to the. of our nation.

they took the very definition of america. constrained by limited mines and vision and expanded that. while the music may be a little bit better, why you may be just a little fancier, think about it. this room has the same flourishing. that church basements had when they were planning and talking and plotzing about the freedom of our people. this room right here has that same spirit as dusty smell the barns along a road that some

call the underground railroad. who thought to expand the liberty of fellow citizens and america. you see, this is the spirit that gets me excited. when some of us and our nation were told you are not get enough, the. spirit stood up and said "yes i am." when told you could not do, this is the spirit that said "yes, i can." this is the spirit to move along

the road of freedom. that is the spirit in this room. y'all should feel it. this is the spirit when folks right to saddle them with shame, tell them that they were less than human, this is the spirit that stood up and said you may write to me down in history with your bitter twist of lies, you may drop me in the dust, but still i rise. this is the spirit of a soldier and a true that in the face the people that tried to deny her her rights, privileges see, her sister shiship and said "ain't a

spirit. this is the spirit of susan b. anthony and said it says in the constitution that we the people and not the male citizens of our nation, but we the people, all of the people in order to form a more perfect union made this country what it is today. this is the spirit. this is the spirit needed now more than ever. there is still folks that want to say you are less. we in this room must ignite the spirit that says "i am more." there are still people that want to deny the existence, say that you are someonsome anomaly.

we are the ones must say "i am black and i am here. i am polish and i am here. i am irish and i am here. i am jewish and i am here. i am gay, i am transgendered, i am queer and i am here." [cheers and applause] get used to it. the echoes of our ancestors cannot be needed in this call for justice, at the call to free them is so loud and hard. we still live in a nation where some people want to deny the rights of others. we still live in a nation that jackie robinson spoke as eloquently when he said that

the cloth of america is that everybody who is an american should have a first-class citizenship. this is the united states of america. it is not united airlines. with its first-class and coach. this is the united states of america where every citizen should have equal rights, equal citizenship, under the law. we have a mission. we must call for this spirit. more than ever before there is an urgency now. some folks might be wary because the road to freedom has never been an easy one. some folks have scars on their backs. some folks have been that still aches in their soul. we cannot stop. james baldwin said that human history is a perpetual testament to the achievement of

the impossible dream of america must drive us forward. we must not fail now. when other people want to drive us, we must be the hope. when people drive us to doubt, we must be the fate. i learned this from my family and my parents and my grandparents that one folks tried to tell you if you are lesser when one person stand up straight and strong, and they lived an entire nation. [applause] when one person defiantly refuses to be relegated to first second class, we are all elevated. this is what everybody must understand. you cannot deny the right of freedom and liberty of others without diminishing your own. this is what we must understand.

king said from a jeered georgia what king said from a jail cell rings true for all of us. said that we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of unity that a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. i give and we're conversations with my friends. why are you always talking about the right? i am not. i am talking about human rights. i'm talking about my right. i am talking about your right. you need to understand something. this is what and i know we do what i was top -- taught in my

childhood days from parent to understood their own history and ancestry. this is what my parents told me. never forget that we need each other. you have the results of a community of courage. he was a young boy who was born ppoor. he now tells people i was po - i could afford the other two letters. he said what my mom could not take care of me it was a community of courage. it was the conspiracy of love that looked at me as their child. they did not look at my race, my

ginger, my orientation, my religion. they saw me as one of their own and make sure i have food on my table. when it was time for me to go to college, people knew that the most viable natural resources in that community was not will or a gas. folks but dollar bills and and envelops a hotly go to college. my mom and dad did not just tell me stories. i had the privilege of being the commencement speaker for my mom's university on the 50th university. here is the frustrating thing about mollet's. -- mama's. she looked at me and you could become a grown man at 40 years old and you could be the mayor of a city in the sultry you like you are 12. -- and they still treat you like

you are 12. she said come here, as are pulled me around by my hand. i said i am the mayor, mom. you're burning might image. she to be to table to table and said you have to meet these folks. this is the person that ran our voter registration drive. this is almost like she was saying pay attention. pay attention. this person thought for you. they struggled for you. they sacrifice for you. this is not about lot of voter rights for black civil rights. it was about american rights, about human rights, about the rights of the citizen of this nation. as i got older, that they reminded me of the clear truth. there were blacks, whites,

latinos and asians. there were a gay folks and street books all marching for justice in america. they told me that you need to remember this from the beaches of normandy were there were black folks and white folks and gave the colts. you need to remember this. when people were fighting to expand, it everybody involved. we knew we were all in it together. deep and real african proper was true. if you want to go fast you go alone, if you want to go far you go to get there. -- together. so now it is time we go together. the dream of america is still just as urgent.

this is still just as real. we are not finished with this nation yet. the word of our founders, liberty and justice for all, are still as operational as long as there is a person in this country that does not enjoy the same rights as their brother or their sister when it comes to voting rights, when it comes to marriage rights, when it comes to civil rights. when it comes to social security and tax law and visitation and adoption as long as there are two glasses a citizenship we have work to do. there is an urgency. this is a mission. it is not a game mission or a straight mission. it is not a black mission or a white mission. this is the american mission. the lies of this battle are not demarcated on any map. they run from neighborhood and

towns all over this nation. as long as there are children in pain in their own neighborhoods and communities, reluctant and fearful. as long as their two people and love -- their are two people in love the stand before god and their fellow man but cannot declare themselves married just like their brothers and sisters. as long as this humiliation is heaped upon people who refused to be victims, and know they will be victors. we have work to do to get to that point. this is a call. i see this in new jersey. we are battling in that ranch. new jersey is a state line. i am a prisoner of hope.

no person, no organization can stand in the way of this country as it marches toward freedom, opportunity, and equality. we will ensure that merit a quality is signed into law in the state of new jersey. when that bill is signed, and may have a very good seat for it. -- i may have a very good seat for its. . i want to end with a call to my countrymen. i want to end with an appeal to our common ancestry of spirit.

i want to and as my ancestors did with a firm demand and a comment convention conveyed in spirit and blood and sweat and determination and relentlessness and indefatigable resistance. i want to and with what my parents try to teach me every single day, not just with their words but what they're examples. my mom and apple the my brother and i to bed and they would read to us -- my mother and dad would put my brother and i to bed and they would read to us stories about champions of american history, about the great men and women from all races and backgrounds to afford me the privilege is that i earnedid non appeared my parents would tell me you drank deeply from wells of freedom and liberty and opportunity that you did not dig.

each lavishly from a banquet tables that were prepared for you by your ancestors. they would tease me and say you have a choice in life. you can sit back consuming all that was put before you, getting fat and happy, or you can let these blessings metabolize in your body and fuel you for words. what it means to understand that the democracy i enjoy did not just happen. change is not just rolled in on the wheels of inevitability. it must be carried in on the backs of soldiers. they wanted me to understand that all who have the privilege to call themselves americans have an obligation. this democracy is not a spectator sports. the music, and the anthem of our country when it plays, you have to get your back up off the wall and get into the game and

do your work. it has never done as long as one person is denied the rights the you inspired to enjoy. my parents would read to me the words of toand thomas jefferson, the writings of frederick douglass and the poetry of our ancestors. allow me to take the liberty today that i have taken one other time as a democratic national convention. i was so energized to be a part of a convention that was historic and first recognize with in its platform the truth that i had felt in my of life that we must recognize the equal rights been under the law in every area including the right to marriage. i am so proud of my president for all he has done.

i will work until the last hour to see president obama reelected. [cheers and applause] i stand with obama because i stand for the quality. whether it is a woman's right to make the same money when she works the same job as a man or whether it is somebody who served in the military no matter who they are, no matter who they love, if they have courage, it they have commitment, and if they have the capacity i want them out there keeping america states. as i stood there, i recited the call of my childhood. i will be cited now taking a

liberty to change one word that you will recognize when i do. it is a poem by a hero of mine named langston hughes. my parents read it to me by my bedside for the first time. inside this. "let america be america again. the land that never has been yet but yet must be. the land where everyone is free. the poor man. the indian, the negro, and the lgbt. who made america? whose sweat and blood? who plowed in the rain must make our my teaching live again.

i say if plane. american never was america to me but i swear this oath. america will be." my brothers and sisters, a summit of. -- of spirit, it is time that we go out and make up the spirit of our countrymen and women and tell them that we are here to help you remember from whence we came. we are here to let you know that all of us hold these truths to be self evident. we are one nation under god, indivisible. we must wake up the. that recognizes that all people are created equal and endowed by -- creature byilcredo

rights.ienable i can join truth under the law with my brother sisters, that we are all first-class, and the campaign we talked about will continue until that day to become a reality. thank you very much. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" a look at the 2012 campaign in the battleground state of ohio. we will talk to jim heath and daniel tokaji.

we will also hear from jayhawks ente -- jay hottinger. and then the role of young ohio voters. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> one of the things i've heard from a number of companies is that the sec has sometimes nonce had much alacrity with the respect to issues that are in the commission or delaying action on other issues. i wanted to think about different ways the commission could speed up its processes. i think that one of the key things the commission can and should do is unable more dynamic industry, get more spectrum into the commercial marketplace. there been a number of different proposals on the table.

i have taken and all of the above approach. i tried to think of different ways that the sec could remove barriers to infrastructure investment. some studies have estimated for every billion dollars at the private sector spent a fiber deployment, 20,000 new jobs be created. from a regulatory perspective, my view is that our goal should be to remove the barriers to enable the private sector to take those risks and make those multibillion-dollar investment decisions. >>ajit pai monday night at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this government has promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the soviet military buildup on the island of cuba. within the past few weeks, unmistakable evidence have established the fact that a series of offensive missile

sites is now in preparation on that imprisons islands. the purpose of this basis can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere. >> do you deny that the u.s.s.r. is placing medium and intermediate sites in cuba? yes or no? do not wait for a translation. yes or no? >> historians, scholars, historians and scholars on the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. >> see the vice-presidential debate thursday night live on c- span. watch and engage. next,